Chemical analysis: iPhone 5, 4S are Apple’s greenest smartphones yet

Apple's iPhone 5 and iPhone 4S rank among the least "toxic" smartphones with significant market share, according to analysis by iFixit and HealthyStuff.org. The analysis also shows that Apple has made significant strides in reducing hazardous materials from each successive iPhone iteration as part of its promise to make "the most environmentally responsible products in our industry."

HealthyStuff.org laid waste to 36 smartphones, examining the individual chemical components of each part using X-ray fluorescence spectrometry. Each device had its components measured for common toxic chemicals such as bromine, chlorine, mercury, and lead, and then rated by the amount of these chemicals on a scale of 0 to 5.

The original iPhone qualified as "high concern," rating a full 5.0. However, each successive iPhone model did appreciably better, with the iPhone 3G (and presumably 3GS) scoring 3.91, and the iPhone 4 scoring 2.95. The iPhone 4S ranked number two among all smartphones tested (and number one among Apple's) with a 2.69 "low concern" rating. The iPhone 5 fared slightly worse at 2.75, but still is considered "low concern."

Source: iFixit/HealthyStuff.org

"Nearly all the other phones that were marked 'low concern' are specifically marketed as green phones," according to iFixit. "Of the high market share phones analyzed, the iPhone 4 and 5 easily rank best, with fewer toxic chemicals both by component and by chemical."

iFixit also noted that overall, newer smartphones tended to contain less hazardous materials, but that most manufacturers were inconsistent even among currently shipping models.

"There is a trend of less toxics over time—especially for Apple," iFixit said. "That's good, but it's not good enough. Many toxics remain."

Promoted Comments

I'm not sure this makes a lot of sense. Am I really to believe that smartphones contain signficant quantities of toxic chlorine gas? That seems improbable. So, they contain chlorine-containing compounds? But, by that measure, my food is extremely toxic, containing signficant quantities of sodium chloride. Doesn't "toxicity" need a more sensible metric than "contains atoms of an element that is hazardous in its elemental form?"

The chlorine is normally contained as a compound in plastics as a part of the polymer (e.g., PVC), a flame retardant additive (less common these days) or as a trace contaminant (e.g., Cl residues in epoxy due to intermediate process chemistry).

The environmental hazards of concern are, in order of descending severity and probability:

- disposed plastics are often incinerated and unless the temperature is carefully regulated above a certain minimum, Br and Cl decompose to Dioxins and Furans which are deadly toxins. This is also a significant hazard to fire-fighters entering burning buildings to rescue consumers of electronic. As your local fire chief how much they enjoy the plastic fumes.

- heating discarded circuit boards to remove components and salvage metals is mainly done in poor countries under poorly regulated conditions and can also result in low temperature burning of plastics resulting in the release of Dioxins and Furans, poisoning the workers. But don't let it concern you, these are mainly poor folks in China, Africa and India, and it gives them a chance to enjoy playing with mobile phones and game consoles before the end of their short lives.

- plastics disposed in landfills can leach out chlorine and unreacted bromine, which then also decomposes to Dioxins poisoning water and aquatic life.

- the processes to synthesize and compound plastics using chlorine as a component also generates waste products, some of which find their way into the environment although this is generally better regulated that the above noted routes.

So eliminating the risk with replacement materials is a pretty good idea and the cost to consumer is a very small fraction of the price.